Jump to content

Talk:Franks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tibatto (talk | contribs) at 02:53, 24 February 2018. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Former featured articleFranks is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 17, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 19, 2003Brilliant proseNominated
May 25, 2006Featured article reviewKept
September 1, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article


End of the Franks

When did the Franks end? I don't know, some say they have not ended yet. I think they were beginning to end the whole time they were Franks. We need a definite arbitrary end here to correspond with the definite beginning. Everything that begins must end. The beginning was the formation of a common confederacy, a socio-political event establishing a unity. The end therefore should be a socio-political event taking away that unity. That question was resolved by the Treaty of Verdun. That was the end without hope of reclamation of the common kingdom of the Franks. The beginning of the end must have been much earlier. This is my reasoning for following the majority view that Frankish unity ended with that treaty. Therefore I am restoring that idea to the introduction of the section on culture. If you have some better reasoning, by all means bring it up. Otherwise do not alter please without reasons.Dave (talk) 04:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should put some sort of timeline to help with this, I'm new or I would help.75.71.53.184 (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ferenghi

Related question at Talk:Ferenghi. --EarthFurst (talk) 11:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The statue of Clovis and Saint Remi

This statue, actually, is pretty far from the Cathedral and is located near the Abbey of Saint Remi (also in Reims). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.77.33.1 (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Salian Franks and Belgians

The assertion that the Belgians were celticized germans is not cited, and Wikipedia itself elsewhere explains that this is quite a controversial view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.39.161 (talk) 03:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

there's a discussion about the celtic origins of the belgians (and their ancestors, the boii, which also gave bohemia it's name) in "the role of migration in the history of the eurasian steppe", andrew bell-fialkoff, 2000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.181.93 (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

marvingi / merovech

i've searched long and hard and cannot find anybody else that has seen any relevance in the fact that ptolemy places a tribe called the marvingi at the confluence of the rhine and the main. could this have anything to do with merovingian (and therefore frankish) ancestry? one may note that the fact that the franks did not retain germanic legends of descent from odin is unusual if they were indeed a german confederation, and further note that the dominant religious practices in clovis' time were gallo-celtic (arduina) in nature. then again, i suppose a gallic continuity hypothesis is just too simplistic, isn't it?

It's not whether or not it's simplistic - it's whether or not this is in any WP:RS. If it is, no problem citing it. If it's not, please see WP:OR. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
well, ptolemy was an ancient roman geographer writing from egypt. you need to be careful with him. what i'm doing here is throwing out a request for somebody in the field to address the issue, because i've never seen it addressed. i can't just jump from "ptolemy identified marvingi near the rhine" to "the marvingi ptolemy identified were the frankish merovingians", especially considering that the accepted scholarly opinion is that they were riparian (atlantic) franks. it's just that there are a lot of holes in the idea, and a lot of myths surrounding their origin. it's an idea, not an assertion.
I made an edit to Merovingian dynasty with a source. Some other stuff comes up at Google Books, but I don't have access to those books. Srnec (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
thank you.
and just to follow up on this: gregory of tours (who is usually considered the better source, apparently) claims the franks originated in pannonia rather than belgium. this is generally discarded as "nonsense" because it doesn't fit other evidence, but perhaps that dismissal is a little too hasty and ought not to be total. there's a source here: http://books.google.ca/books?id=yhaSRVnI1Y4C&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=franks+from+pannonia&source=bl&ots=hBrvPEEJcY&sig=_iUp9GQb-EDmH6Mh-dmrXOUO1WY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=q_brUrmaKuS22gXU9oGQAw&ved=0CG8Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=franks%20from%20pannonia&f=false (sorry for the ridiculous link) that briefly deconstructs the myth as incorporating tribes that moved from the east into the frankish confederacy. it doesn't mention the marvingi explicitly, but it's consistent with the idea that a large of amount of the frankish ethnogenesis was composed of tribes that do not have an extended history in the low countries. it's still not direct evidence, but it's building up towards a hypothesis.
i'm going to leave this alone, now, in hopes that somebody picks it up as a research topic and reports back here about it.
...except to point out that there's a historical movement of alans from pannonia to france that fits the entire narrative and could have merged with a few german tribes along the way. it's discussed in a relatively recent book, Deutschlands unbekannte Jahrhunderte, Geheimnisse aus dem Frühmittelalter by Richard Schmoekel (i can't read german).

Examples of derived words

Why are languages that don't use Latin scripts still in unnecessary language templates? These should be made straight text,--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frank haplotype

There are multiple problems with this addition. What we have is one obscure primary source that reports a small number of people buried in a Frankish cemetery had these haplotypes. It is completely impossible to conclude from this that all of the Franks were a particular haplotype - that is just not how it works. You can only conclude that those specific individual Franks were of that haplotype, or that the Franks included people of that haplotype. Anything else is going beyond the data. Likewise, the text as it stands is badly described and badly referenced. Most importantly, though, fixing all of this won't solve the problem, because it is both WP:PRIMARY and WP:UNDUE. Find for me a general (secondary) account of the Franks that accepts the conclusion of this study and deems it worthwhile information to include in their account, and then we can consider the appropriateness of including it. Until then it is just one unconfirmed, over-interpreted, badly cited and inaccurately summarized piece of non-noteworthy trivia. Agricolae (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This study was done on behalf of the Minister of Culture of Netherlands(said in my source) and is directly hosted on the website of the Minister(link below). If you think i have misinterpreted this study, feel free to read it and tell me where i am wrong.
https://cultureelerfgoed.nl/sites/default/files/publications/lauwerier_2014_ram_222_merovingers_in_een_villa_2.pdf